Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI)

[basis]

[quote="raikal"]basis/ lemsis

I was told by a friend of mine who worked in Indian embassy in the past in London that

Any Indian citizen who loses the nationality by getting foreign nationality ( like BN) and then apply for either PIO or OCI , there is no minimum stay in the country ( 7 years for PIO or 5 years for OCI) for these people.
These were already indian citizens in the past and if they want to get back to Indian nationality ( by renouncing BN ) then there is no minimum stay clause.

That looks correct to me too...

do you agree?[/quote]

Checking the legal position unfortunately it is not correct. Practically things may be happening like as I mentioned in previous post. Refer to the bare act here http://www.indialawinfo.com/bareacts/citi.html

Specifically provisions under -

5. Citizenship by registration
9. Termination of citizenship
SCHEDULE I

You can see that once your citizenship terminates after voluntarily acquiring citizenship of another country by naturalisation, registration or otherwise you go back to square one. And then you need to restart the minium residence period again.

Citizenship by Registration
The Central Government may, on an application, register as a citizen of India under section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1955 any person (not being an illegal migrant) if he belongs to any of the following categories:

(a) a person of Indian origin who is ordinarily resident in India for seven years before making an application for registration;

(b) a person of Indian origin who is ordinarily resident in any country or place outside undivided India;

(c) a person who is married to a citizen of India and is ordinarily resident in India for seven years before making an application for registration;

(d) minor children of persons who are citizens of India;

(e) a person of full age and capacity whose parents are registered as citizens of India by ordinary residence in India for seven years;

(f) a person of full age and capacity who, or either of his parents, was earlier citizen of independent India, and has been residing in India for one year immediately before making an application for registration;

(g) a person of full age and capacity who has been registered as an overseas citizen of India for five years, and who has been residing in India for one year before making an application for registration

Once you give up your citizenship you are a person of indian origin and have to go through the naturalisation process.

A clarification on OCI-You can convert to full citizenship in 5 years if you have lived in India for a year out of the 5.

[raikal]

basis,

good investigation. I think you are right. Once any one is on PIO / OCI they have to wait for 7 or 5 years respectively.

I am in a similar situation of yours. Not able to decide whether to opt for PIO or OCI. As per your pervious note " debate in the UK parliament about curtailing Dual nationality", if that happens we will have to renounce OCI and then go for PIO.

I think the best option for me is, be on PIO until I want to go back for good and when I go back, switch to OCI ( If at that time UK allows Dual nationality )

I Am sure then extend PIO beyond 15 year for a fancy fees !

Thanks

[ppron747]

basis,
good investigation. I think you are right. Once any one is on PIO / OCI they have to wait for 7 or 5 years respectively.
I am in a similar situation of yours. Not able to decide whether to opt for PIO or OCI. As per your pervious note " debate in the UK parliament about curtailing Dual nationality", if that happens we will have to renounce OCI and then go for PIO....

I might have missed it, but I can't find any reference to a British parliamentary debate on dual nationality in any posts here. Could you post a link?
Thanks

[basis]

Even I dont recollect any reference to discussion around curtailing dual nationality. The discussion was that UK treats OIC as dual citizenship and that's only because the Govt of India has managed with some commendable success to create this wrong notion among everyone.

All that has been said here AFAIK is that since OIC is treated as Dual Citizenship - 1. One may not be able to get consular protection while in India if one hold OIC, and 2. Tomorrow if the person has to be stripped off the British Nationality due to any reason - Home Office could do that (atleast that's what they say). But this is impossible as the person will become stateless in that case which is not allowed.

So all in all there are no disadvantages of OIC as of now. Two main advantages of OIC over PIO are -

1. It is lifelong and no need to register with FRRO even if the stay exceeds 180 days in a single visit - This is more advantageous for those who would want to return to India (R2i) in near future or have already returned to India for good or for considerable time.

2. Regaining Indian Citizenship - It is easier and quicker. e.g. If you have a PIO card whenever you R2I you would have to stay continuously for seven years. In case of OIC it would be just one year of residence in any five years from the date of obtaining OIC. Now the key question why would you want to do that but you never know

Being UK citizen you have atleast a choice to have OIC - if you were citizen of a country like Austria which does not allow dual nationality then you would have to go for PIO only.

The Govt of India has absolutely mismanaged the whole aspect of dual nationality. Lot of time, money wasted in the whole process and no tangible benefits to Persons of Indian Origin having other citizenship.

[raikal]

I may have mis-interpreted it. but the following link says more or less

http://dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1000259

[John]

I don't think this should be overplayed. As that newspaper article says :-

.... as part of the government's new anti-terrorism drive ...

In other words, if a British Citizen who also possesses other Citizenship is involved in terrorist activities then the UK Government will have the right to remove their British Nationality.

The UK Government already has lots of powers to remove British Citizenship, for example if it later becomes clear that the person lied on their Naturalisation application form. Which is why IMHO there is now a question of the application form about whether the person has been involved in terrorism. Answer Yes to that and you are not likely to get an offer of British Citizenship. Answer No, when the truthful answer is Yes, and already the UK Government has the power to remove Citizenship.

[lemess]

In other words, if a British Citizen who also possesses other Citizenship is involved in terrorist activities then the UK Government will have the right to remove their British Nationality.

The UK Government already has lots of powers to remove British Citizenship, for example if it later becomes clear that the person lied on their Naturalisation application form. Which is why IMHO there is now a question of the application form about whether the person has been involved in terrorism. Answer Yes to that and you are not likely to get an offer of British Citizenship. Answer No, when the truthful answer is Yes, and already the UK Government has the power to remove Citizenship.

The key issue is that the British government can only strip british citizenship if someone is a dual citizen. The Briish nationality act does not allow the government to remove citizenship and leave someone stateless. This means that one can actually lie on their form and get British nationality and provided they lose their other citizenship in the process ( as happens with Indian nationals), they cannot have their BC revoked. So basically if someone wanted to acquire BC by fraud, they can lie on their form and renounce any other citizenship after they are granted naturalisation. They can't then be stripped off their nationality - which doesn't mean they can't be subject to criminal proceedings.

Re: terrorism, the funny thing is that David Blunkett failed in his attempt to strip Abu hamza of his citizenship as he had renounced his egyptian citizenship ! So unless you happen to be in a minority of cases where you have dual citizenship and have fraudulently gained British nationality, British naturalisation is a more or less irreversible process.

[yorkking]

There are customs rules which permit u to carry foreign goods upto Rs.24000 or so as a returning resident for indian passport holders.
what happens if u r visiting ur parents on a UK passport with a PIO card?
what kind of customs rules applies in terms of goods u can take to india?
yk

[ppron747]

...The key issue is that the British government can only strip british citizenship if someone is a dual citizen. The Briish nationality act does not allow the government to remove citizenship and leave someone stateless. This means that one can actually lie on their form and get British nationality and provided they lose their other citizenship in the process ( as happens with Indian nationals), they cannot have their BC revoked....

Not any more, I'm afraid...

Since 1 April 2003, when section 4 of the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002 amended Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, people who obtained British nationality by fraud, false representation or concealment of material fact can be deprived of British nationality even if it leaves them stateless. I suppose the argument would go that if they hadn't committed the criminal act that resulted in their becoming British, they wouldn't have lost their alternative nationality, so therefore they effectively made themselves stateless.

But it's true that the provision to deprive people who have engaged in activity which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom or a British Overseas Territory applies only to people with an alternative nationality.

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, which is before Parliament at the moment, replaces the "seriously prejudicial activity" criterion with the new criterion - "The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good..." The prohibition on doing this if it leaves the person stateless is still there, though.

[basis]

What does this mean ?

Lets take an example. If a person does not intend to continue to live in the UK and still applies for BC. Subsequently his application is approved and he takes the oath, british passport. By virtue of this he loses his previous nationality - e.g Indian.
Upon receiving UK passport and necessary visa of India, he leaves the UK for employement in india.

At what point the HO will cancel his UK citizenship and he becomes stateless. what does stateless mean practically. How will HO prove his intention at the time of application ? And if he says that he still intends to live in the UK but due to employement opportunities he is currently in india how will that be treated ?

[ppron747]

What does this mean ?

Nothing much to people here, I would imagine, basis...

Lets take an example. If a person does not intend to continue to live in the UK and still applies for BC. Subsequently his application is approved and he takes the oath, british passport. By virtue of this he loses his previous nationality - e.g Indian.
Upon receiving UK passport and necessary visa of India, he leaves the UK for employement in india.

At what point the HO will cancel his UK citizenship and he becomes stateless. what does stateless mean practically. How will HO prove his intention at the time of application ? And if he says that he still intends to live in the UK but due to employement opportunities he is currently in india how will that be treated ?

I think, to answer the bold bit, at no point will the Home Office cancel such a person's citizenship. It would simply not be possible to prove one way or the other what a person's intentions were on a particular day, which is what they'd need to do. I'm absolutely sure that this provision is reserved for the most serious cases - not just the person who tells some fibs on his/her application form; more the person who has commited serious offences and told fibs on their application form.
I posted the details only as a corrective to the statement that there was no power to deprive if it meant that the person would be left stateless. I didn't intend it as a warning, honest!
As to the consequences of statelessness, it would presumably mean they'd be stuck with a stateless person's travel document - and the necessity of getting a visa to go anywhere at all. But if my belief that we're looking only at serious criminals is correct, the travel document might be a bit academic, as they're likely to be serving long sentences if they're in the UK....

[basis]

But I remember John has somewhere said if a person blatantly and soon after the naturalisation leaves the UK then his / her BC could be cancelled. Is that true ? And in that case what exactly blatantly may mean. Is this specified in any rules, laws or guidelines ?

e.g. One example I can think of is one applies for BC and leaves the UK within a couple of days, comes back to receive the approval, takes the oath and passport. Within a couple of months leaves the UK again for employement elsewhere. Is this blatant or soon enough. I cant think of any worse scenario myself except that one books a flight within hours after the ceremony. And even then how can one prove 'intentions' ? One may do all this and still intend to continue to be in the UK - so long as he / she gets good job, education blah blah. And another question is how will HO know about it ? What's the mechanism - UK does not keep inward / outward migration and once BC is received there is no further stage that one has to go to HO.

I know personally many such blatant / immediate cases - all Indians (most of them want to be settled in India for good and once they had enough of abroad have taken BC or other citizenships and are happiliy residing in India). May be one way is I can tell the HO abt those and see what happens. Only thing is I dont know many of their's postal addresses in India so would not know how HO can contact them.

[lemess]

Basis,
This is all rather academic. The point is that as ppron said, deciding to go live somewhere else is no reason to cancel british citizenship - in law or indeed in practice. Neither I nor anyone else I know is aware of a single case where someone has been deprived of their citizenship on these grounds. The only requirement is that when you applied for naturalisation your intention must have been to make the UK your permanent home. it is entirely possible for intentions to change and anyway this is impossible to prove one way or the other . I suspect the home office or IND has neither the resources nor the inclination to monitor where people decide to live and deprive them of their citizenship unless as ppron says there is serious criminal activity involved. Doing so would be a colossal waste of public money. Even in that case I suspect the criminal courts rather than the home office would get involved.

I know personally many such blatant / immediate cases - all Indians (most of them want to be settled in India for good and once they had enough of abroad have taken BC or other citizenships and are happiliy residing in India). May be one way is I can tell the HO abt those and see what happens. Only thing is I dont know many of their's postal addresses in India so would not know how HO can contact them.

This would be a pointless exercise. As I said, the home office has more important things to do than tracking down british citizens throughout the world and attempting to prove in a court of law that their intention while naturalising was falsely represented. Secondly, someone who is living as a resident abroad could legitimately have every intention of coming back to settle once again in the UK. It would be impossible to prove otherwise.

[ppron747]

It's theoretically true but, in practical terms, impossible.

The Act requires a naturalisation applicant to intend to have his home (or if he has more than one), his principal home in the UK. So even if someone went through the citizenship ceremony with his one-way airticket in his pocket, and the content of his house packed up in crates outside the registry office, ready for air-freighting, it would still be impossible to prove that he didn't intend to return to UK after his few-months sojourn in his "secondary" home.

So I don't think that you have a great future as a stool-pigeon, basis - unless you were to confine yourself to dobbing in people who you know have applied for naturalisation, but who haven't yet gone through their ceremony. Nothing's definite until the Oath and Pledge have been taken, after all...

[raikal]

There is something to add from my side too.

A friend of mine was asked to Leave the country a month before he was eligible to appy for BN. Then he went on leave for 1 month approached a city based solicitor and given solicitor's contact address on the BN form and applied. Immediately after that he left UK, and came back for ceremony just for 1 day.
Then he applied for passport at a later date (with 2 day visit to UK ) and flew back.

I dont think it is not illegal as he has taken the Solicitor's advice and they have processed it legally.

I dont think they have any right to revoke the BN unless you are doing some criminal things.

[basis]

http://www.hicomind.org.nz/OCI_Dual.htm

This needs to be sent to UK Home Office for their clarity on what OCI is.

OCI IS NOT DUAL CITIZENSHIP


There is some confusion in the minds of Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) and others that Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) amounts to granting dual citizenship. Therefore, the following clarification is being issued.

The expression ‘dual citizenship’ is a misnomer. The scheme, as has been of operationalised by Government of India is more commonly known as ‘dual citizenship’. However, the technical term used for the scheme in the Citizenship Act, 1955 (as amended vide Amendment Act, 2005) is ‘Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI)’.

Articles 5 to 9 of the Constitution of India provide for the grant of Indian citizenship (IC) at the commencement of Constitution i.e. 26.01.1950. Article 9 clearly states that a person shall cease to be a citizen of India, if he voluntary acquires the citizenship of India of any foreign State. Therefore, one can not have citizenship of any other country, if he is an Indian citizen.

The acquisition of IC after 26.01.1950 is governed by the provisions of Citizenship Act, 1955 and Citizenship Rules, 1956. Indian citizenship may be acquired in the following manners under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

(i) By Birth – Under Section 3

(ii) By Descent – Under Section 4

(iii) By Registration – Under Section 5 and

(iv) By Naturalization – Under Section 6.

Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 deals with termination of IC, which is reproduced as below.
“9.Termination of citizenship – Any citizen of India who by naturalization, registration otherwise voluntarily acquires, or has at anytime between the 26th January, 1950 and the commencement of this Act, voluntarily acquired the citizenship of another country shall, upon such acquisition or, as the case may be, such commencement, cease to be a citizen of India.”

In order to fulfill aspirations of large Indian Diaspora of renewing ties with their motherland, as recommended by the High Level Committee on Indian Diaspora, Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, introducing a new category of citizenship known as Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI). Citizenship Act, 1955 was further amended by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2005 to expand the scope of OCI from PIOs of 16 specified countries to citizens of all countries except Pakistan and Bangladesh as long as their home countries allow dual citizenship in some form or the other under their local laws.

2.Persons registered as OCI are not Indian citizens. This is a new category created under the statute with certain restricted rights as compared to Indian citizens.

3.It may be further clarified that the provision of eligibility to PIOs of only those countries that allow dual citizenship in some form or other under their local laws was kept primarily to ensure that they do not lose any of the rights conferred under the foreign citizenship on being registered as OCI.

[basis]

There is something to add from my side too.

A friend of mine was asked .................

I dont think it is not illegal as he has taken the Solicitor's advice and they have processed it legally.

I dont think they have any right to revoke the BN unless you are doing some criminal things.

Solicitors could also ill advise. I am sure if your friend says to the HO now that this was the case he will be stripped of his BC and left stateless if he was an Indian citizen. But I am equally sure that the solicitor has advised him not to be so dumb

[lemess]

http://www.hicomind.org.nz/OCI_Dual.htm

3.It may be further clarified that the provision of eligibility to PIOs of only those countries that allow dual citizenship in some form or other under their local laws was kept primarily to ensure that they do not lose any of the rights conferred under the foreign citizenship on being registered as OCI.

Still not sure about how requiring OCIs to be citizens of a country supporting dual citizenship actually has relevance if OCI is not dual citizenship - even for the Indian government.
Maybe this implies that british citizens who are registered as OCIs would not lose the right to consular protection whilst in India but I can't work out the logic from the Indian high commission statement above. This statement should indeed be passed to the home office as it should clearly establish the right of an OCI to get british consular protection in India.

[lemess]

There is something to add from my side too.

A friend of mine was asked .................

I dont think it is not illegal as he has taken the Solicitor's advice and they have processed it legally.

I dont think they have any right to revoke the BN unless you are doing some criminal things.

Solicitors could also ill advise. I am sure if your friend says to the HO now that this was the case he will be stripped of his BC and left stateless if he was an Indian citizen. But I am equally sure that the solicitor has advised him not to be so dumb

No offence mate but you seem to be hell bent on finding a justification for stripping British citizenship !

I don't know of a single case when this has actually happened - do you ?
Heck - they haven't even been able to do it to Abu Hamza !!

[ppron747]

http://www.hicomind.org.nz/OCI_Dual.htm

This needs to be sent to UK Home Office for their clarity on what OCI is.

OCI IS NOT DUAL CITIZENSHIP

There is some confusion in the minds of Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) and others that Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) amounts to granting dual citizenship. Therefore, the following clarification is being issued.

The expression ‘dual citizenship’ is a misnomer. The scheme, as has been of operationalised by Government of India is more commonly known as ‘dual citizenship’. However, the technical term used for the scheme in the Citizenship Act, 1955 (as amended vide Amendment Act, 2005) is ‘Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI)’....

<snipped: details of Indian Citizenship Act>

....In order to fulfill aspirations of large Indian Diaspora of renewing ties with their motherland, as recommended by the High Level Committee on Indian Diaspora, Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, introducing a new category of citizenship known as Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI). Citizenship Act, 1955 was further amended by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2005 to expand the scope of OCI from PIOs of 16 specified countries to citizens of all countries except Pakistan and Bangladesh as long as their home countries allow dual citizenship in some form or the other under their local laws.

2.Persons registered as OCI are not Indian citizens. This is a new category created under the statute with certain restricted rights as compared to Indian citizens.

3.It may be further clarified that the provision of eligibility to PIOs of only those countries that allow dual citizenship in some form or other under their local laws was kept primarily to ensure that they do not lose any of the rights conferred under the foreign citizenship on being registered as OCI.

Alright, I'll bite...

In what way does it clarify anything? I don't actually understand what the Indian government is trying to convey by the phrase "OCI is not dual citizenship".

They say it is "a new category of citizenship". So they are reiterating their position that it is a citizenship, rather than something else, as I think some of us had concluded.

They also say that it is available only to "PIOs of only those countries that allow dual citizenship" - which we already knew.

It seems pretty self-evident that OCI is not in itself dual citizenship - it is only one status.

But it is a citizenship (according to them), and people who hold OCI are, inescapably, dual citizens, given that dual citizens are people with two or more citizenships.

I repeat: in what way does it clarify anything?

[lemess]

Exactly my thoughts ppron.

welcome to the enthralling world of the Indian civil service.

[ppron747]

There is something to add from my side too.

A friend of mine was asked .................

I dont think it is not illegal as he has taken the Solicitor's advice and they have processed it legally.

I dont think they have any right to revoke the BN unless you are doing some criminal things.

Solicitors could also ill advise. I am sure if your friend says to the HO now that this was the case he will be stripped of his BC and left stateless if he was an Indian citizen. But I am equally sure that the solicitor has advised him not to be so dumb

I realise that this will come as something of a blow, basis, but in 2002 Lord Filkin (Home Office Minister ) said

"I wish to emphasise....that we regard deprivation of citizenship as a very serious step to be contemplated only in the most flagrant cases of deception or disloyalty. It would be reserved, as it has been in the past, for serious cases in which the individual?s actions were totally incompatible with the holding of British nationality"

According to the Home Office website, Lord Filkin went on to give, as examples of circumstances in which deprivation of citizenship might be appropriate, those of British citizens engaged in espionage or terrorism against the United Kingdom and British citizens fighting for an enemy against British or allied forces. Cases that are not of a similar magnitude are unlikely to be pursued.

[basis]

Update on OCI applications for those who applied when it was much more costly in 2004 -

The telephone no and Name of the person who is dealing with the old applications in India - M C Sharma Ph: 00911123389882

And the current status as per him is -

All the OCI Applications of 2004 have been disposed off. People can receive the OCI cards any time from the embassies where they had applied.

[confused1]

275 pounds for OIC!!!!

is the OIC a life OIC, or does it need to be renewed after a certain set period?

In places like UP or West Bengal or Assam etc.. you can feed a family of four for a whole year with £275. It's just to rip off the NRIs.

[lemess]

275 pounds for OIC!!!!

is the OIC a life OIC, or does it need to be renewed after a certain set period?

In places like UP or West Bengal or Assam etc.. you can feed a family of four for a whole year with £275. It's just to rip off the NRIs.

Considering the fact that the service is for foreign citizens who in most case do not pay Indian tax and thus fund the salaries of the admins involved and the cost of the service involves the overseas staff in embassies etc., how else do you think they would fund this ? Quite apart from the merits of OCI ( which I thinkare debatable as I consider the scheme a sham), I don't think your point about what £275 can buy in remote parts of India makes much sense. Indeed you could use that argument to question the cost of just about anything in India ( plane fares, cost of housing in metros etc etc)